| "Direct relationship does not = that they have the right to every name each time their mark is used in a name. That is my opinion. There are many cases won that agree with my opinion, and many that agree with yours."
I think you are missing my point. Saying that it is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which they have rights is only ONE of THREE criteria under the UDRP. In this instance, that one point, which is the only one this discussion has really addressed, is pretty much a no brainer, and you tend to agree with that.
As to "why the hell do you think I picked the name up in a drop?" you haven't really described much about that question.
I'm guessing you don't know very much about me at all, considering your comments about what motivates lawyers. I certainly worked for the side with less money in the mercedesshop.com dispute, which we won.
But we certainly wouldn't have won by arguing that mercedesshop.com has nothing to do with the Mercedes trademark - indeed, it is a direct reference to the Mercedes trademark, because the entire subject matter of the website relates to Mercedes products.
But it seems you are confusing the issue of the presence of a trademark with being entitled to transfer of the domain name. We seem to agree that Disney has a strong trademark interest in movies, and that "DisneyMovie" is a reference to movies originating with Disney. That is a far cry from saying they have no rights in a "non-word". Of course their rights are an issue - the question of whether you were violating them is still open on the basis of the facts you've presented so far.
So Mickey says to the judge, "Your honor, I didn't say she was insane..."
__________________
John Berryhill Ph.d., esq.
John-AT-johnberryhill.com
Please do not send private messages via dnforum.com, email me directly. |